[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-605?page=all ]
Hoss Man updated LUCENE-605:
Attachment: demo-subclassing-explanation-approach.patch
patch showing the first steps towards the subclassing approach.
I definitely think this is a much better way to
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-451?page=all ]
Hoss Man updated LUCENE-451:
Attachment: bq.containing.clause.with.zero.boost.tests.patch
a revised version of hte previous tst patch ... this fixes a lot of the things
that made the tests "invali
I think that it might be good to define 3 levels:
fundamental - what all programs probably will use
useful - what many programs might use
and
contrib - mostly examples and code that is not quite ready to be
classed as useful
On Jun 16, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
Are there any
On 6/20/06, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem
we have is trying to explain to users how to install java in order to
get our application to work.
Ahh... if you didn't already have a large code base, I'd suggest
trying PyLucene in conjunction with freeze (which can make a python
pro
Finding good SWT support on anything but the latest (and major) OS's is
going to be rather poor and inconsistent. Just check the SWT bugs
(especially for things like printing).
For a company that seems to want to allow their users to stay in the dark
ages - good luck with SWT.
-Original Messa
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, DM Smith wrote:
We are planning to migrate from Swing to Eclipse's RCP/JFace/SWT and then we
can and would use GCJ. If Lucene goes to Java 5, we will need to re-examine
those plans.
If you are planning to compile Java Lucene with gcj you may want to take a
look at the t
Installing Java requires about 2 mouse clicks from java.sun.com.
Installing Java from your distribution CD (if you don't have one) requires
no mouse clicks.
-Original Message-
From: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:24 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Su
I don't follow...
If a user came to you and said I want to run BibleDesktop, and they have
MS-DOS, you would tell them you can't (or you might have to run the very old
BibleDesktop 1.0).
If they told you they have Windows 98 with Java 1.4 and 256mb or memory, you
would say you can run BibleDeskto
On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 6/20/06, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, there is still GCJ too. If GCJ supported 1.5, and we
> could make a 1.4 library with Retrotranslator, that should cover
most
> users, right?
If I am not mistaken: future support
On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
- Original Message
From: DM Smith
On 6/20/06, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Sorry, for some reason my
Yahoo email doesn't prepend ">" on replies, so I'll use "OG" for my
lines.
In my situation, I am constantly working on improvin
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-569?page=all ]
paul.elschot updated LUCENE-569:
Attachment: NearSpansOrdered.java
NearSpansUnordered.java
These two attachments (NearSpansOrdered and NearSpansUnordered), together with
the ne
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-415?page=comments#action_12416990 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-415:
-
Thanks Andy! I've committed a patch to set the length to zero if it wasn't
already.
If this doesn't also fix the "some fairly odd
This looks like a very good find that might solve our problems and put an end
to the discussion.
It looks like this would require a change to the build process (Ant stuff) and
nothing else.
If anyone want to contribute a patch (Ray? Steve? Dan? DM Smith?), I'd love to
test it out and commit it,
On 6/20/06, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, there is still GCJ too. If GCJ supported 1.5, and we
> could make a 1.4 library with Retrotranslator, that should cover most
> users, right?
If I am not mistaken: future support for 1.5 in gcj is ambiguous and/or will
be incomplete.
- Original Message
From: DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This poll does not indicate anything about Lucene. It is open to anyone who
goes to quimble and searches on Java.
OG: Oh, come on now! :) Are people really going through a site like Quimble
looking for java polls? Come on! No, of
- Original Message
From: DM Smith
On 6/20/06, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Sorry, for some reason my Yahoo email
doesn't prepend ">" on replies, so I'll use "OG" for my lines.
In my situation, I am constantly working on improving an open source
application. Our use of Lucene is ver
I think the decision was made among developers without asking for much user
input. I think that made a huge difference.
Otis
- Original Message
From: Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:30:3
On 6/20/06, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In any case, there is still GCJ too. If GCJ supported 1.5, and we
could make a 1.4 library with Retrotranslator, that should cover most
users, right?
I just took a look at GCJ again.
If I am not mistaken: future support for 1.5 in gcj is
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-398?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley resolved LUCENE-398:
-
Fix Version: 2.0.1
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Yonik Seeley (was: Lucene Developers)
Thanks for tracking this down Christian!
I've committed
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-607?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley resolved LUCENE-607:
-
Fix Version: 2.0.1
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Yonik Seeley
Looks fine to me, (committed.) Thanks for another high-quality patch Chuck!
> Pa
On 6/20/06, Ray Tsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think retrotranslator only work on the syntax, but not on the 1.5
specific libraries (for obvious reasons).
I was going by the link provided: http://retrotranslator.sourceforge.net/
What Java 5.0 features are supported?
* Generics (generic
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-608?page=all ]
Daniel Naber updated LUCENE-608:
Attachment: document.diff
> deprecate Document.fields(), add getFields()
>
>
> Key: LUCENE-608
>
deprecate Document.fields(), add getFields()
Key: LUCENE-608
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-608
Project: Lucene - Java
Type: Improvement
Components: Other
Versions: 2.0.0
Reporter: Daniel
I don't know much about those tools, but it wouldn't seem feasible to supply
1.5 compatible libraries (otherwise the stupid classpath project would have
been abandoned long ago).
I think the bug fixing that has gone into 1.5 libraries is just as important
as the language changes.
-Original Me
I think retrotranslator only work on the syntax, but not on the 1.5
specific libraries (for obvious reasons).
A real use case was written up by a Java 5 web mvc framework at
http://stripes.mc4j.org/confluence/display/stripes/Java+1.4+and+Stripes
Once again, so long we stay away from non-1.4 compa
On 6/20/06, Steven Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could not tools like Retrotranslator[2] or Retroweaver[3] be used to
satisfy both camps?
That's an interesting option Steven... Retrotranslator certainly looks
like they handle almost everything!
If we ended up taking that route, we have enoug
On a side note, please feel free to vote for bugs to get the attention
of a committer. Opening a duplicate bug just makes it harder to
straighten out things in the long run and fills JIRA with cruft.
I fully intend to start working on popular issues (hence the need for
votes) after my move in
I agree with most of the points Otis makes. As a developer I would
prefer to develop in Java5.
As I do all my Solr development in Java5, it would be nice to be able
to move some common stuff to Lucene more easily. Now I have to plan
ahead of time if I think it has a decent probability of being
This poll does not indicate anything about Lucene. It is open to anyone who
goes to quimble and searches on Java.
On 6/16/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It looks like I would have won a beer had anyone wagered me.
1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not
To me, I am just as likely to make contributions in 1.4 as I am 1.5 and
I am running 1.5 in my daily life. I just don't find it all that hard
to do 1.4 for Lucene since IntelliJ allows me to set my compiler version
for the Lucene project and then forget about it, going about creating my
patche
Doug Cutting wrote:
[T]his isn't a user-versus-user issue, but rather a
user-versus-developer issue, where we, the developers, have all the
power.
The poll[1] seems to indicate that a large minority of users are using
Lucene with Java 1.4, and it has been asserted (without contention) that
m
On 6/20/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, for some reason my Yahoo email doesn't prepend ">" on replies, so
I'll use "OG" for my lines.
- Original Message
From: Dan Armbrust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Also, at my place of employment we have about 40,000 desktop comput
Could someone shed light on how the decision to transition from Java 1.3
to Java 1.4 unfolded? Any lessons learned or applicable here?
Mike
"Robert Engels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
06/20/2006 02:24 PM
Please respond to
java-dev@lucene.apache.org
To
cc
Subject
RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene
I think your statement "do not seem to fully appreciate the
volunteer-contribution model" hits the nail on the head.
There is a minority that wants everything for free, wants it work exactly as
they want, and then have the audacity to tell the others they should do more
even work to make them happ
Robert Engels wrote:
I have another idea.
Why don't we just let the voted committers decide amongst themselves.
If push comes to shove, this decision will be made by consensus of the
Lucene PMC. Any member of the PMC can veto any change to the code.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.
I think Otis put things perfectly and would like to second everything
he's said.
This is about facilitating more contributions from the majority vs.
creating a version that the minority can use. To answer Otis's
question, "How small does the percentage of 1.4 users need to be, before
we can have
I would like to suggest that a central core Lucene be identified and
that core be maintained as compatible for Java 1.4.
It has also been stated that J2ME compatibility is a future goal. It
would be nice to consider that in defining a central core. (BTW, there
are two J2ME standards, one is a
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-569?page=comments#action_12416949 ]
paul.elschot commented on LUCENE-569:
-
TestSpanExplanations (latest) with the SpanScorer.explain.testcase.patch passes
here,
but my intermediate version of NearSpansOrdere
> A clear majority has voted. Why can't we
> listen to them and move forward???
Just to be clear: a (badly designed) poll was taken. No one "voted".
Bill
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-m
Sorry, for some reason my Yahoo email doesn't prepend ">" on replies, so I'll
use "OG" for my lines.
- Original Message
From: Dan Armbrust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Robert Engels wrote:
>
> People making these arguments against 1.5 sound really ill-informed, or
> lazy. Neither of which is go
Robert Engels wrote:
To set the record straight, I think the Lucene product and community are
fantastic. Period.
Ditto.
[snip]
After almost 2 years I now back the move. Why? Several reasons:
1. Sun is very slow, if at all to fix bugs in 1.4 (of which there are many).
For example, the curren
I have another idea.
Why don't we just let the voted committers decide amongst themselves.
Since they are principally charged with maintaining the code quality and
feature set, they are in the best position to make the decision.
-Original Message-
From: Dan Armbrust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
hi...
i'm looking at a problem and i can't figure out how to "easily" solve it...
basically, i'm trying to figure out if there's a way to use lucene/nutch
with some form of pattern matching to extract course information from a
College/Registrar's course section...
Assume I can point to a Regiatr
To set the record straight, I think the Lucene product and community are
fantastic. Period.
I was also not the one who starting in with what could be termed
'aggressive' language.
Our company does not fully support 1.5. I was the loudest voice against the
move to 1.5.
After almost 2 years I now
Robert Engels wrote:
People making these arguments against 1.5 sound really ill-informed, or
lazy. Neither of which is good for open-source development.
Preface - I'm not a lucene developer - just an interested user.
I don't know - it seems to me that it is the 1.5 crowd that is making
the
: From: Robert Engels
: The "lazy" refers to the ability/desire of the 1.4 "users & developers" to
: devote their resources to back-porting the code to the 2.0.X release. Rather
: than having the 1.5 developers having to waste their time "thinking" in 1.4
: when their work is predominately being
46 matches
Mail list logo
